## Facts

- Ivan Abramovich Morozov assembled a Russian art collection that included Paul Cézanne’s *Portrait of Madame Cézanne in a Green Armchair*.
- In December 1918, the Soviet government issued a decree nationalizing Morozov’s collection, confiscating the painting within Soviet territory and extinguishing Morozov’s property rights under Soviet law.
- The United States recognized the Soviet Union in 1933; recognition was treated as retroactive in validating sovereign acts from the regime’s inception for act-of-state purposes.
- Soviet officials sold the painting abroad in the early 1930s; it eventually was gifted to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1960, which has since possessed and displayed it in New York.
- The Russian Federation has not repudiated the 1918 nationalization of Morozov’s collection.
- Pierre Konowaloff, Morozov’s heir, demanded return of the painting in 2010; the Met refused.
- Konowaloff sued in federal court asserting, among other theories, replevin, conversion, and declaratory relief based on alleged superior ownership.

## Issues

1. Whether the act of state doctrine barred claims that would require a U.S. court to declare invalid the Soviet government’s 1918 nationalization and subsequent disposition of the painting.
2. Whether the doctrine was inapplicable because the confiscation was allegedly an “act of party” rather than a sovereign act, or because the Soviet Union’s dissolution and later Russian conduct reduced any foreign-relations concerns.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the action was barred by the act of state doctrine because the asserted ownership claims necessarily depended on invalidating the 1918 Soviet nationalization and related sovereign acts.
- The court rejected the “act of party” characterization, treating the confiscation as a sovereign act carried out by decree within the foreign state’s territory.
- The court concluded that the Soviet Union’s dissolution did not negate the doctrine’s application, particularly where the successor state had not repudiated the nationalization.

## Legal Principles

- Under the act of state doctrine, U.S. courts will not adjudicate the validity of a recognized foreign sovereign’s public acts performed within its own territory.
- A plaintiff cannot obtain relief on ownership-based claims where success requires a U.S. court to treat a foreign sovereign’s nationalization decree as invalid or ineffective.
- U.S. recognition of a revolutionary regime is treated as retroactive for act-of-state purposes, validating sovereign acts from the regime’s beginning.
- The absence of repudiation by a successor government supports continued judicial noninquiry into the foreign sovereign’s historical nationalization acts.

## Conclusion

Because Konowaloff’s claims to recover the Cézanne depended on attacking the legal effect of the Soviet government’s 1918 nationalization and later disposition, the act of state doctrine barred the suit, and the Met’s dismissal was affirmed.


Konowaloff v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 702 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2012)